I started this and still see THE difference. Red luminance of the DP2m is higher (or less adjusted) than the DP3m. Color mode of the DP3m is not the same as the DP2m, as I stated and as I continue to state.

So you see A difference. Will have to have a look at the color mode theory you mention here.

The next generation of DP, probably after the cash back, will reach the same level. The Dp3m is adjusted compared to the other DPm. Like The DP2s was compared to the DP2.

Speculations. Or having inside knowledge?

I do not think I had a faulty camera nor models changed skin in some months.

If some of you are newcomers in this brand I suggest you read the forum a little bit more. The color shift of the SD1m, who freakin exist and is a fact, for us, professional, is exacerbated in the DP2m and does not exist in the DP3m.

Fact?

And could you please stop this professionals thing? I'm a pro too.

On this very forum I'm in contact with some professionals (who do not care to post here) and managed to get accurate result/variations over time with the DP2m but after color calibration and custom WB in neutral mode ... I speak about art reproduction professional, not flower shooters.

Don't do art reproduction, shoot the occasional flower. Gary also does art reproduction professionally, would love to hear his opinion on this.

A simple D700 or K5 is more color accurate than a DP2m without pp... This is not the case with the DP3m >> he is superior.

This is not necessary with the DP3m because standard mode of the DP3m is equivalent to the neutral mode of the DP2m (roughly).

need to check that

I owned all sigma camera from the SD14, all. This is not the case of probably 85% of the ppl who post here... There is a color difference (even minimal) between ALL sigma cameras over the generations, ALL.

Since SD10. And yes there are differences between each and everyone of them. Among SD14s it was often not minimal.

My wild guess, for the DP2m, SD1m (probably at a serial level) is that the filter between red and green was not that adjusted thus ending in this brown saturation and cadaveric rendering of all skin tones. There is Soooooo much much example over the web... just wake up or consult an ophthalmologist.

Just try to change your tone a little. Yes I see problems, yes I changes, yes I see some things need adjustment. But if you are so sure what the reason is, why is it not solved? No one else saw it? You did not contact Sigma/Foveon about it? Come on I love your enthusiasm and applaud that but please don't make yourself into the sole Savior of the Foveon technology.

Sorry, but i don't understand the discussion. You claim that the DP3m has much better/accurate colors than DP1m and DP2m, no problems with skin tones etc.Thats very interesting, because i often have problems with skin tones with my Merrills.But where is the proof? You started this topic.

Bob made this test and i can't see any big differences. So isn't it up to you to show what you mean?

And I do not understand you Bob ... to try try to prove the contrary ... Are you blind to not see this difference ?? Or just like contradictions ?? I'm amazed.

I noticed I like working with the DP3M more than the DP2M so I try to find out why. Is it the color or is it something else.

This is IT !!

Why do you not come in the first place to say that ??? This is it !! The DP3m is the more easy coming of the 3 Merrills.

Why would I? The post was about color.

Don't you think I asked myself the same questions before posting on LuLa ??

I think you need to work a little on your writing skills

Don't you think I'm in contact with professionals and SIGMA professional sellers who noticed it too ??

So lets have a true debate and stop trying to prove that H.Bowman is WRONG, because I am not.

Who was trying to do that? I took a color debate that is going on on this forum and tried a scientific approach. Where did I mention that it is to prove you wrong? This was simply all part of that true debate you propose.

Just to throw something in, I think the DP3M has an easier time with colors as the view angle is much narrower and thus having less mixing of light. Also the angle of incident on the sensor is better for Foveon yielding in better results. A thing I noticed on the SD1 too, with longer lenses it is much easier to get good (color) results.

The tittle of your OP is completely different from the tittle of an other thread.

As a pro I didn't even tried to go on the Scientific side of this debate because this is just useless and I do not own a real review bench (this is not my work). Without scientific LAB results, tests over here are biased by so many factors ... well. I understand some of the late trolls over here, after all.

-- hide signature --

So I stop all blabla and I just say this :

For the photographers who are interested in going into the SIGMA DP line and do not care about shooting with a 75mm equivalent (and about polemics) :

The SIGMA DP3 Merrill output better IQ (sharpness is just a parameter) than the other DP Merrills. This as all to do with an adjusted signal, the file out of the DP3m is more balanced and more ... SONY like, more neutral, less odd, less shift.

Some of the Foveon "problems" such as colour splotch are present if we expose badly, (just expose foveon like a film and your ok).

For now, the DP3m, despite his longer focal length, is the easiest Foveon I used so far even in PP.

It is up to you to trust me or no. By reading my "report" on this >>>>> LINK <<<<<< you will have some infos, not all, because I did not have the pretension to call me a reviewer or to do scientific tests. I'm just a user who was impressed by the change, in a good way.

The tittle of your OP is completely different from the tittle of an other thread.

Of course it is... it's another thread...

As a pro I didn't even tried to go on the Scientific side of this debate because this is just useless and I do not own a real review bench (this is not my work). Without scientific LAB results, tests over here are biased by so many factors ... well. I understand some of the late trolls over here, after all.

Then do not make absolute claims as you do.

-- hide signature --

So I stop all blabla and I just say this :

For the photographers who are interested in going into the SIGMA DP line and do not care about shooting with a 75mm equivalent (and about polemics) :

The SIGMA DP3 Merrill output better IQ (sharpness is just a parameter) than the other DP Merrills. This as all to do with an adjusted signal, the file out of the DP3m is more balanced and more ... SONY like, more neutral, less odd, less shift.

Some of the Foveon "problems" such as colour splotch are present if we expose badly, (just expose foveon like a film and your ok).

For now, the DP3m, despite his longer focal length, is the easiest Foveon I used so far even in PP.

It is up to you to trust me or no. By reading my "report" on this >>>>> LINK <<<<<< you will have some infos, not all, because I did not have the pretension to call me a reviewer or to do scientific tests. I'm just a user who was impressed by the change, in a good way.

All the best.

Bold helps making things true I guess. Wishing you all the best and enjoy your cameras. When you have more evidence you can show, I would love to have a look at it. I'm open for any new insights.

Of course, some may Pixel peep to come close and erase this differences but I speak about direct raw output. The one who pp or adjust something just fake and bias the real result. The Dp3m is just naturally more accurate without any adjustments (especially white balance, if correctly mastered by the operator of course ...).

If it is due only to the lens ... what a hell of a lens then !!

'I speak about direct raw output' - what's that meant to be? Doesn't make any sense at all.

'The DP3M is just naturally more accurate without any adjustments' - naturally?

'The one who pp or adjust just fake and bias the real result'

Seriously? What the heck is the 'real result' and what is 'fake' wth pp (post processing)?

Granted - English isn't your first language. But even so: what a complete nonsense.

Where is the non sense ??

Take a photo , export it in jpeg mode without touching any cursor. Are you sure that English is YOUR native language ??

C'mon guys... This start to be ridiculous (and not by my side).

Damn, between grumpy old men and Fame seekers, we are wonderfully served on this forum. So much bellicosity !!

Of course, some may Pixel peep to come close and erase this differences but I speak about direct raw output. The one who pp or adjust something just fake and bias the real result. The Dp3m is just naturally more accurate without any adjustments (especially white balance, if correctly mastered by the operator of course ...).

If it is due only to the lens ... what a hell of a lens then !!

'I speak about direct raw output' - what's that meant to be? Doesn't make any sense at all.

'The DP3M is just naturally more accurate without any adjustments' - naturally?

'The one who pp or adjust just fake and bias the real result'

Seriously? What the heck is the 'real result' and what is 'fake' wth pp (post processing)?

Granted - English isn't your first language. But even so: what a complete nonsense.

Where is the non sense ??

Take a photo , export it in jpeg mode without touching any cursor. Are you sure that English is YOUR native language ??

C'mon guys... This start to be ridiculous (and not by my side).

Damn, between grumpy old men and Fame seekers, we are wonderfully served on this forum. So much bellicosity !!

Of course, some may Pixel peep to come close and erase this differences but I speak about direct raw output. The one who pp or adjust something just fake and bias the real result. The Dp3m is just naturally more accurate without any adjustments (especially white balance, if correctly mastered by the operator of course ...).

If it is due only to the lens ... what a hell of a lens then !!

'I speak about direct raw output' - what's that meant to be? Doesn't make any sense at all.

'The DP3M is just naturally more accurate without any adjustments' - naturally?

'The one who pp or adjust just fake and bias the real result'

Seriously? What the heck is the 'real result' and what is 'fake' wth pp (post processing)?

Granted - English isn't your first language. But even so: what a complete nonsense.

Where is the non sense ??

Take a photo , export it in jpeg mode without touching any cursor. Are you sure that English is YOUR native language ??

C'mon guys... This start to be ridiculous (and not by my side).

Damn, between grumpy old men and Fame seekers, we are wonderfully served on this forum. So much bellicosity !!

And I do not understand you Bob ... to try try to prove the contrary ... Are you blind to not see this difference ?? Or just like contradictions ?? I'm amazed.

The problem is that those of us with all three cameras are not seeing the difference when we look at shots taken of the same subject in the same light.

I didn't follow the whole thread here but are you saying you do see differences in the samples Bob posted? It seems like one thing you mentioned was better red saturation - is that the main point? If so, that allows a better understanding for everyone. To be that difference seems slight and would not affect my own choice between the two cameras, but to others (like yourself) it might be a much bigger deal.

Of course, I do have examples, real examples of what I claim but I will show it when time will come. The more funny in it, is that I gift those X3F samples to one or two ppl here and they know it.

No time like the present - literally - since we now have some examples showing what a number of people personally find to indicate consistency. In order to state they are not consistent, examples showing this also need to be present. Otherwise it's just opinion that is not being corroborated out by multiple people that have both cameras.

And if there is a real difference, samples are even better because they show everyone else reading the range of difference and the situation under which it occurs. This is really useful for other people considering cameras to decide which camera they might get, depending on what they shoot or what they think the magnitude of difference is. You have described the difference as "large" but it could well be what you think is large, another person would consider insignificant or the conditions not relevant to what they shoot.

That show the true nature of some individuals here and lead me on my choice for eventual future cooperation's work. The choice will be very quick.

I don't quite understand what that meant but don't take any of this as an attack, only a difference of weighting. How can you be offended by people simply showing what the cameras are doing and then giving their interpretations of the output? Images shown provide a common baseline to have a reasonable discussion where everyone is perfectly understood, it baffles me at how anyone can get angry over other people's own vision as to what photographs mean that anyone can see. You can just state what you see, people can read both opinions, and decide which way they fall based on what they in turn see looking at the same images. Many people here have quite a lot of experience, yourself included, so we are simply looking at a range of very well informed opinion.

Bob, you made a test with custom color balance. And all three cameras looks, more or less, the same. Yeah ... sure. They should. Should they not? Its the same sensor, probably the same IR filter and all three cameras are calibrated. Sure, the lenses are different, and might add some color finger print, but it looks to be very faint, if at all.

Nice test.

If I am not wrong Hulyss claims that his DP3M camera gives better color for some white balance preset. Wasnt that so? Correct me if I am wrong.

Moreover, Bob made another test where he tested auto WB and preset WB. And as far as I remember, the only difference in result was for preset. The preset was warmer for the DP3M than for the DP2M. It was very easy to see.

So ... I see no conflicting claims.

But ... correct me if I am wrong.

EDIT

BTW - come to think of it. As both auto WB and custom WB are calibrated for the camera you use, the warmer DP3M could both be a different preset and a different camera. You can really only look at the RAW data to see if its different.

Bob, you made a test with custom color balance. And all three cameras looks, more or less, the same. Yeah ... sure. They should. Should they not? Its the same sensor, probably the same IR filter and all three cameras are calibrated. Sure, the lenses are different, and might add some color finger print, but it looks to be very faint, if at all.

Nice test.

If I am not wrong Hulyss claims that his DP3M camera gives better color for some white balance preset. Wasnt that so? Correct me if I am wrong.

Moreover, Bob made another test where he tested auto WB and preset WB. And as far as I remember, the only difference in result was for preset. The preset was warmer for the DP3M than for the DP2M. It was very easy to see.

So ... I see no conflicting claims.

But ... correct me if I am wrong.

EDIT

BTW - come to think of it. As both auto WB and custom WB are calibrated for the camera you use, the warmer DP3M could both be a different preset and a different camera. You can really only look at the RAW data to see if its different.

The funny thing is that I didn't even meant to discharge anyone's claims. I also have a feeling there is something different in the DP3M. And I would love to find out what and why. Just with this test I found that if all things are equal, there is not a big difference between them. As I wrote in a response to Sandy further investigation is still to be done.

For some reason Hulyss felt personally attacked by this. And although I admire his ongoing enthusiasm, I feel his claims are very bold and overstated. And never backed up with any evidence. So called claims of so called professionals who only speak to him are for me no evidence.

It's too bad this ended up in such strange 'discussion'. I think by exchanging ideas of what we see we can get much further.

The funny thing is that I didn't even meant to discharge anyone's claims. I also have a feeling there is something different in the DP3M. And I would love to find out what and why. Just with this test I found that if all things are equal, there is not a big difference between them. As I wrote in a response to Sandy further investigation is still to be done.

For some reason Hulyss felt personally attacked by this. And although I admire his ongoing enthusiasm, I feel his claims are very bold and overstated. And never backed up with any evidence. So called claims of so called professionals who only speak to him are for me no evidence.

It's too bad this ended up in such strange 'discussion'. I think by exchanging ideas of what we see we can get much further.

Yeah ... maybe ..

But ... was my analysis wrong?

1. If you use auto wb and/or custom wb you cancel out any differences, and should get, more or less, the same result.

2.a If you use presets, and the presets are the same, independent of camera, then you will see the real camera difference, or2.b If you use presets, and presets are camera specific, then anything may happen.

The test you made some days ago I think showed that you only saw a difference when using a preset. And I think Hulyss has said that he uses presets.

So ... if this is the case ... are you not in agreement?

EDIT:

To test this you can do like this.

TEST 1:

Take two calibrated images (auto or custom wb) and look at the result. It should be same. Then look at the RAW data, they should also be the same if the cameras are the same. But, if the RAW are different, then the cameras are different.

TEST 2:

Take two images with a preset of your choice and look at the result. The images shall be different. Then look at the RAW data. If the data is the same, then the preset differs. If the RAW differs, the cameras are different.

. . .it baffles me at how anyone can get angry over other people's own vision as to what photographs mean that anyone can see.

That does not baffle me, Kendall. Hulyss is a very devoted, dedicated, professional. What saddens me is that he appears to feel threatened. Knowing the sincere nature of Bob's work here and elsewhere I wish to see them work together. Both of them have my respect.

. . . it interests me that you stated a theory that the longer lens on the DP3M could be directing more light directly to the end of the wells and that there were better colour results when using longer FL lenses on the SD1.

If that is so, hello Sigma! You might be onto something to benefit us all.

. . .it baffles me at how anyone can get angry over other people's own vision as to what photographs mean that anyone can see.

That does not baffle me, Kendall. Hulyss is a very devoted, dedicated, professional. What saddens me is that he appears to feel threatened. Knowing the sincere nature of Bob's work here and elsewhere I wish to see them work together. Both of them have my respect.

I am just wondering if it has to do with HBowman using the DP2m with its older firmware and the older version SPP. Then he sold it before the latest DP2m firmware or the SPP 5.5 upgrade. Then he got the DP3m and is comparing today's DP3m to yesterday's DP2m color. I know he is a excellent photographer and seems to enjoy helping others to get the most out of these cameras.

It is hard to see any significant differences in the OP's test but I am sure these were taken with the latest firmwares and SPP upgrades (well maybe not the SPP 5.5.1 but surely the 5.5 version)

I know I personally see many color and white balance improvements with my DP2m since the upgrades and firmware update. This could be why there is a difference in opinions on these issues between the DP2m and the DP3m.

I am hoping when I get a chance to try the new SPP 5.5.1 update that I see even more IQ improvements and tweaks. I really like my DP2m!!!!

Just presenting a possible reason for the differences in results or opinions.